Should a break in a program be severely penalized?

IMO the referee was right to blow the whistle in order to protect Gordeeva and Grinkov from an injury. However, when they did not stop and completed the program without falling, I can't see why they should be disqualified. They didn't put anyone else in danger.

There may be many reasons why they did not stop. One shouldn't compare 1987 with today. In the days when there was no GP circuit, G/G had had very little exposure to international competition (she was 15) and possibly they had never seen a case in which the referee blew his whistle and didn't know what it meant. Secondly, they may not have heard it at all, since the crowd was very noisy and it could be mistaken for something they were doing. Thirdly, they may have thought there was a music problem and may not have dared stopped their routine, especially since apparently their coach told them to carry on and the crowd was encouraging them. The referee should have made an announcement through the microphone, if he really wanted to stop them.

The only time the whistle was blown for safety reasons while I was watching a competition live, neither I nor my friends noticed it, the skaters didn't stop and they were not penalised. I learned about it later on. This isn't some sort of dictatorship, decisions should make sense.

I'm nor arguing that the referee was correct in the G/G case. I think the skaters should have been given the benefit of the doubt in this case, rather than be disqualified.

I do think that there is always a possibility that an official will make a bad decision and refuse to correct it. I don't think that means that officials should never make decisions or exercise judgement. On the one hand, they can make these decisions dependent on more than one person, like two members of the tech team being able to outvote the other, but the flip side is that a majority of judges need to point out that the music has lyrics and call for a music deduction, when the music clearly does, but not enough judges do so.

^^^^
Speaking of which, did you notice that the votes on a music violation now show up on the protocols?
There was one given to the Chinese team at Jr. Worldshttp://www.isuresults.com/results/wjc2013/wjc2013_JuniorIceDance_FD_Scores.pdf
Check the couple in 17th place in the FD, Zhang & Wu. The votes (indicated by how many points deduction each judge thought should be taken) is shown. However, if a judge did not vote for the deduction, nothing at all shows in that column.

It does not appear that that line is shown unless a majority of judges has voted for a deduction, and the deduction is indeed given.

I can't imagine why they ignored the whistle. I think the decision to disqualify was exactly correct.

Click to expand...

IIRC, their new coach Stanislav Leonovich asked them to continue. They were all really young.
Of course, I've watched it years later, when G&G were already Olympic champions, and I was a fan. So, maybe I'm biased. I don't know how I would have reacted in 1987, but IMO, to disqulify them was stupid. they skated perfectly, they were the current World champ. So, I would have prefered if judges asked them to skate again.

^^^^
Speaking of which, did you notice that the votes on a music violation now show up on the protocols?
There was one given to the Chinese team at Jr. Worldshttp://www.isuresults.com/results/wjc2013/wjc2013_JuniorIceDance_FD_Scores.pdf
Check the couple in 17th place in the FD, Zhang & Wu. The votes (indicated by how many points deduction each judge thought should be taken) is shown. However, if a judge did not vote for the deduction, nothing at all shows in that column.

It does not appear that that line is shown unless a majority of judges has voted for a deduction, and the deduction is indeed given.

Click to expand...

The USFSA protocol sheet has a whole area on its protocol sheet for deductions and it always shows whether there is a deduction or not. In fact, I was about to ask why the isu protocols weren't set up this way.
Deductions
Costume/Prop violation 0.00
Time violation 0.00
Music violation 0.00
Illegal element/movement 0.00
Falls 0.00
Interruption in excess 0.00
Costume failure

I do think that there is always a possibility that an official will make a bad decision and refuse to correct it.

Click to expand...

Once they've stopped a program that didn't need to be stopped, it's too late to correct it -- the skater has already lost momentum on top of whatever the problem was to begin with. Sometimes it has to be done anyway because of the appearance imminent danger (to the skater and/or the ice surface), but sometimes just waiting a few more seconds would have made it clear that the skater had recovered from the problem and was fine to go on.

Specifically I'm thinking of a situation in which a skater is injured during the program and is not bleeding or otherwise threatening the ice surface (or partner) but takes a momentary break from the program to assess his/her own condition before deciding whether to continue or to stop the program (i.e., to withdraw).

In the immediate aftermath of the injury, the referee's first thought will probably be something like "This skater may not be able to continue. I should get ready to have the music person stop the music and to call for medical attention if necessary." But then give it a few seconds and see what the skater does next.

If they're bleeding freely, or skating around in a daze apparently unaware of their surroundings, by all means stop them. Or if they're lying on the ice making no effort to get up.

But if they're just trying to determine whether they can go on, give them 10 or 15 seconds to make that decision, don't blow the whistle immediately and offer them a 3-minute break.

The referee does not need to be meddling or stopping skaters except under threat of terrorist attack.

Click to expand...

Well, I think the ref does need to protect the ice surface for the safety of subsequent skaters, as well as the safety of this skater. Examples would be bleeding copiously or vomiting onto the ice, or anything falling onto the ice (whether from the skater or from elsewhere) that's likely to present a hazard -- something large and bright enough to be obvious and only in a single spot on the ice is less dangerous than multiple small ice-colored items.

Also loose pants straps that are long enough to trip over or similar costume hazards.

My point is that sometimes the referee will see the danger first, and sometimes the skater will.

I don't think the ref should have a hair trigger to blow the whistle -- give it 5 seconds or so. First make sure that the problem really does present a danger and that the skater is not aware (or is aware and is in the process of stopping) and then blow the whistle and stop the music.

Meanwhile, the skater might also have noticed the danger and realize that s/he has to stop.

That's why I say that whether there's a deduction or not should be based on the source of the problem (skater's responsibility or organizers'/venue's responsibility), not based on who stopped the program.

If it's equipment related, it is probably best to expect people to be responsible for having their boots and sequins ready for show when they hit the ice. I would let technical experts decide if a similar -3.0 with no option to repeat elements would be fair for the broadest range of boot and costume disasters we could imagine.

Click to expand...

Again, if the skater has a problem with his/her own equipment or own body that requires a stop to fix (regardless of who initiates the stop), I'm OK with a deduction.

If the skater stops skating because of a problem with the ice that the skater didn't cause or because of a problem with the music that the skater didn't cause, then there should be no deduction even if the skater noticed the problem and stopped before the referee stopped them.

The amount of the deduction is up for debate. 3.0 is the absolute highest I would consider: 1.0 or 2.0 is probably more appropriate.

There will also almost always be additional penalties related to the initial problem itself that would be reflected in the skating and in the scores. They're already having a bad day. No need to pile insult on injury with punitive severe deductions.

Or maybe the size of the deduction should be scaled somehow to the total score. I'm not sure how to do that fairly. But already 1.0 deductions for falls, etc., are more punitive toward lower-scoring skaters than toward world medal contenders, and with larger fixed deductions this would be even more the case.

There may be many reasons why they did not stop. One shouldn't compare 1987 with today. In the days when there was no GP circuit, G/G had had very little exposure to international competition (she was 15) and possibly they had never seen a case in which the referee blew his whistle and didn't know what it meant. Secondly, they may not have heard it at all, since the crowd was very noisy and it could be mistaken for something they were doing. Thirdly, they may have thought there was a music problem and may not have dared stopped their routine, especially since apparently their coach told them to carry on and the crowd was encouraging them. The referee should have made an announcement through the microphone, if he really wanted to stop them.

Click to expand...

Even without exposure to much international competition, skaters should know what to do when a ref blows the whistle. It is a basic rule of the sport! I have only put toddlers out on the ice at competitions, but I tell the 3-5 year olds that if the music stops, just keep going, and that if a whistle blows, stop and skate to the judges and ask them what to do. I've had a whistle blow on a kid who had a shoelace untied, he did exactly what he was supposed to. When the music has stopped (a few times) results vary.

I suppose crowd noises could have prevented them to hear the whistle, in which case it is surprising (if that was reported that they didn't hear) that an alternate alert has not been devised since. Did they ever actually say they didn't hear the whistle? (ETA: Having just watched the program again, it is clear there are numerous whistles and the use of a buzzer, at times when the crowd is NOT cheering excessively. So if they were told by their coaches to ignore all signals, then that is just the same as a coach not informing skaters of other rules. I'd say after the number of warnings from the ref, they deserved the disqualification. If they had just stopped, he would have fastened the strap and they'd probably have won. Poor coaching it seems.)

YES !
Even if it happened an accident or something serious. Sport is sport, and must not permit a stop during the routine.
It's also to respect the other skaters.
In the past no one ever stop during a routine. Now everyone !
Happened also during the FD at JWC, two times ! I was there.
When you stop you are given 3 minutes by the referee, so you know how much air can you breath in that period ??
and also id judges give you -1 deduction, it's worth it anyway, because you have gained the speed you missed before, and the strength, so high level and high goe.
Somethig ISU should severly penalized !!

Except head to head races, almsot every sport I've ever watched allows stoppage. So I don't think the 'sport is sport' arguement works here.

Click to expand...

I don't watch gymnastics enough to say for sure. But does it allows stoppage in the middle of the floor exercise? Let just say in the middle of the tumbling pass, the pants/outfit rip apart (aka wardrobe malfunction). Can the gymnast stop the routine, change pants/outfit, restart the music (for female), and restart from the beginning of the tumbling pass? Can they do all these without penalty?

Except head to head races, almsot every sport I've ever watched allows stoppage. So I don't think the 'sport is sport' arguement works here.

Click to expand...

You are referring to judged sports where athletes compete one at a time? If you stop in gymnastics on beam or bars then it is a fall which is 1 point or you end up going over time and having giant deductions anyway.

What about diving? Once you leave the board I don't think there is any going back. You can't just abort mid air and get a redo.

The only sports with breaks are team sports where a break affects both teams so no one team gets to take advantage or individual sports where the athletes compete against each other like tennis and again both players get a break.

Are there any good examples of individual sports where athletes compete one at a time with allowed breaks?

No, I think you are right that gymnastics does not allow stoppage. But there are MANY sports that allow stops. I did say -almost- every sport I've watched, not every. I was merely refuting "sport is sport". If "sport is sport" that includes team sports as well.

The rulebook is very dificult to search though It does say that after taking a penalty elements after the time limit are still recognized by the D panel and scored by the E panel. It doesn't really address HOW long over the time limit one can go. For females, it says the routine must end with the music, so that would seem to be the limit, but not sure how that would work for men. (I've read in a few places that if the music stops you have a choice to start over, start from the point of the stop, or keep going without music. I don't know if the ref can stop the music on purpose though.)

ETA: The men's rulebook contains this:

The gymnast is guaranteed the right to: Repeat their entire exercise, if the exercise has been interrupted
for reasons beyond his control or responsibility with
permission of the Superior Jury. such a request not be unreasonably denied with permission
from the Chair of the Superior Jury.

Click to expand...

So it appears there are some situations in which case a 'redo' of the entire routine is allowed. Like stopping in skating, it seems like this would be very rare. Since most of the men's routines are so short, this makes more sense than a pause in the middle (redoing an entire long program would be more of a penalty for most skaters!)

If you stop in gymnastics on beam or bars then it is a fall which is 1 point or you end up going over time and having giant deductions anyway.

Click to expand...

A fall on beam you get 10 seconds, bars 30 seconds . You are allowed to "rest and recuperate"(according to the rulebook), rechalk and confer with your coach during this time. If the timer is doing their job, this is NOT counted against the time of the program.

What about diving? Once you leave the board I don't think there is any going back. You can't just abort mid air and get a redo.

Click to expand...

There are definetly instances where dives can be redone. Tom Daley was given a redive due to camera flashes. I would bet the rulebook has other reasons that a redive can be granted as well.

If the swimmers stop because of circumstances beyond their control, the Referee will allow the routine to be re-swum during the session.

Click to expand...

Found this about synchro swimming. Can't find anything in their rulebook though.

Reading all these rules, I don't think a cramp is a reason for stopping. Within these sports, I'm not sure what might be (streaker running through the apparatus? Ceiling falling? They don't have to worry about crystals on the ice.) I think figure skating needs to re-write the rule to make it clear the intent. I don't think a stop should be granted for any of the reasons the three ice dancers took it this season, but I do think Didier deserved the pause + restart when she crashed into the walls so severely she couldn't get right back up. (Floor exercise doesn't have walls. What do they do if they trip and fall off the podium entirely?)

The stop didn't exactly give her an unfair advantage, I don't think. If there was no injury "time-out" she would have likely just withdrawn. The "time out"gave her a chance to qualify her country a spot at the Olympics (due to invalid elements, she didn't- she was probably too disoriented to skate, and if it weren't for the Olympic qualifying- I bet her coaches wouldn't have had her continue). Since it is written in the rules that it is allowed, any competitor in a similar situation could have done the same thing.

It does seem though that now there is not a penalty for it, and perhaps skaters are being made more aware of the rule, maybe it is being taken advantage of? In the past, maybe both Alex and Tessa would have skated through the pain? Injuries that are not visible are difficult to make decisiosn about- we know Tessa is capable of skating through great pain for instance. She's a hard worker, I doubt she'd be faking it. In fact, I'd be shocked to hear of any skating who hasn't skated through pain/injury. So how does the ref decide what to allow and what not to allow?

In Gymnastics womens vault, the athlete is permitted one abort of their run down the ramp, and a restart. This actually happened at the London summer games. I don't believe the athlete is required to provide a valid reason. In the London games case, it appeared the athlete just didn't feel prepared during the run, and aborted/restarted.

The stop didn't exactly give her an unfair advantage. The reason she likely wanted to continue was to attempt to qualify her country a place in the Olympics. If there was no injury "time-out" she would have likely just withdrawn, which takes that chance to qualify away completely. It wasn't the kind of into the boards fall that most skaters just get up from. She was clearly disoriented, and the 3 minutes allowed her and her coaches to evaluate whether she could continue.

Click to expand...

Guess what. Competition is tough. She fell and got hurt. If she didn't qualify her country for a spot at the Olympics, oh well, better luck next time. Every skater fell on the ice (without resting/restarting the program) got the same fall deduction (-1) and the lower GOE.

As was mentioned upthread, they were asked to reskate. They decided not to knowing they'd be disqualified. (IIRC they felt they were too tired and wouldn't be able to skate as well a second time and do declined the restate.)

In the past, maybe both Alex and Tessa would have skated through the pain?

Click to expand...

You can't skate through a cramp because you can't control your muscles when they cramp. If they had skated through, there would most likely have been a fall.

Since The Shibs were the first instance of this happening in a long time, I don't think they were seeing other people do it "without penalty" and decided to do it too. Maybe Tessa and Scott were thinking of the Shibs when they stopped but most likely there were just thinking "crap, we can't win now". But I'd bet good money that the ref who suggested to the Jr. Worlds team to take a break instead of withdrawing was thinking of what happened to the Shibs and Virtue/Moir.

I also suspect it was this incident, with a ref offering this as an option to an injured team, that push a lot of people over the edge. It seemed the exact opposite of how you run a sport to me. It seemed a lot more like t-ball in Little League where you don't keep score!

But I'd bet good money that the ref who suggested to the Jr. Worlds team to take a break instead of withdrawing was thinking of what happened to the Shibs and Virtue/Moir.

I also suspect it was this incident, with a ref offering this as an option to an injured team, that push a lot of people over the edge. It seemed the exact opposite of how you run a sport to me. It seemed a lot more like t-ball in Little League where you don't keep score!

Click to expand...

That, and that it happened with 2 couples at a single Jr. Worlds.

I think that's why this thread now, after Jr. Worlds, not after 4CCs, and not after Rostelecom Cup.

Having a couple of teams take a mulligan in a competition is starting to look like the new normal, instead of something extraordinary that might happen once every couple of years.

I think it was quite enough to ask the ISU to think through whether this is really how things ought to work in a sport, and what happens if stopping without penalty spreads to singles & pairs (with the late program bonus).

You can't skate through a cramp because you can't control your muscles when they cramp. If they had skated through, there would most likely have been a fall.

Click to expand...

BTW I was so impressed by how Moir understood and reacted to Virtue's situation in a split second. Another couple might have found themselves in an awkward position, with him starting the lift. Amazing.

I am sorry, but your arguments still don't hold skittl. You have yet to give an example of a sport that allows stoppage where the sport has athletes compete ONE AT A TIME. I don't care if a thousand other sports allow stoppage when those stops benefit both teams equally, such as in football, tennis, basketball, etc.

When I mentioned going over time on beam I was not meaning after a fall. I mentioned a fall AND going over time because in my mind I could see two situations. One, you stop your routine for whatever reason and hop off to take a break. That is a fall. Or you stop your routine and just stand there for a while, that is not a fall but would likely take too much time and result in going over time.

The example of Daley's vault is not really appropriate as the cause of his mishap was a flash, or in other words, something completely out of his control. I don't think anyone on here thinks that a skater should be penalized if someone throws something on the ice or decides to streak in the middle of someone's routine. Clearly a stop would be warranted and the athlete should not be punished. The example of getting one baulk on the vault isn't really valid either as the run is not part of the vault, it is not judged in any way, and therefore the vault has not been initiated until the horse is touched. If the horse is touched, then the athlete must finish or take a zero (this happened to Russia at the 2008 Olympics). The equivalent in diving would be someone starting their dive but stopping before leaving the board. I don't know about spring board rules but high divers would be allowed to walk back, regroup and then try again. The dive had not been initiated.

There are simply NO EXAMPLES of sports where athletes compete one at a time where they are allowed to stop (unless it is something completely out of their control). If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

When a skater is allowed a stop/start-over for any reason--without a significant penalty--in a one-at-a-time (or a one-team-at-a-time) sport, it is unfair to all other participants. One must realize that it takes almost superhuman talent and fitness for skaters to compete at the national and international levels. It is not for the faint-of-heart-mind-or-body!

The incident that irritated me was Zhang/Zhang in 2006 in Turin. They stopped because of their failure on a risky element (which incidentally was a crap-shoot to begin with). Instead of losing their standing, the press praised them for bravery, and they won a silver medal. It was the last time I took pairs seriously for a couple of years. If you attempt a dangerous move and fail (a Hail Mary pass), the scoring should give you some credit for trying, but the judging should not tolerate breaks in the program to regroup from failures-- no matter how unfortunate and painful. The "components" imply there is a whole program to judge. A stop after a bad fall, a pep talk, and then a restart after wind is regained, is a lot of interruption. This would be appropriate in boxing, but it is not acceptable in skating.

Once they've stopped a program that didn't need to be stopped, it's too late to correct it -- the skater has already lost momentum on top of whatever the problem was to begin with.

Click to expand...

If a referee stops the program incorrectly, there is no way to eliminate the damage to the skater/team; however, the referee can, effectively reverse the decision and allow a restart without penalty, instead of making it worse. The skaters cannot get back that original momentum -- here I'm willing to assume that the skaters weren't struggling and won't necessarily do better with a restart -- and the initial emotional reactions -- confusion, anger, other -- can't be undone, but an apology/acknowledgement that the referee was wrong and/or that the skater/team was heard shouldn't be underestimated in their ability to help salvage a situation.

In the immediate aftermath of the injury, the referee's first thought will probably be something like "This skater may not be able to continue. I should get ready to have the music person stop the music and to call for medical attention if necessary." But then give it a few seconds and see what the skater does next..

Click to expand...

That might be an excellent general guideline, but waiting a few more seconds could also mean that the ice is splattered with blood, that a skater endangers him or herself, or that one partner endangers the other by trying to move, support, or help the partner physically, and a mandatory amount of waiting could be the wrong decision.

But if they're just trying to determine whether they can go on, give them 10 or 15 seconds to make that decision, don't blow the whistle immediately and offer them a 3-minute break.

Click to expand...

It's ultimately the referee's judgement call. If a skater is moving and clearly breathing, this can be the referees call, and if the music stops only after the skater/team goes to the referee or the referee makes the call, then if the skater takes 10 or 15 seconds to make the decision, the skater loses that much time from the program if it resumed, assuming the responsibility of the stoppage is with the skater/team.

I don't think the ref should have a hair trigger to blow the whistle -- give it 5 seconds or so. First make sure that the problem really does present a danger and that the skater is not aware (or is aware and is in the process of stopping) and then blow the whistle and stop the music.

Click to expand...

Again, good guidelines for many situations, but either the referee has ultimately responsibility for anything visible or not.

That's why I say that whether there's a deduction or not should be based on the source of the problem (skater's responsibility or organizers'/venue's responsibility), not based on who stopped the program.

Click to expand...

I've never argued otherwise. I think there should be no penalty if it's not the skaters' responsibility or misjudgement -- i.e., injury, equipment, costumes, thinks s/he sees a pile of beads in the corner when it's just ice chips -- and I think if it's not the skater's responsibility, the skater/team should be able to restart the program.

There will also almost always be additional penalties related to the initial problem itself that would be reflected in the skating and in the scores. They're already having a bad day. No need to pile insult on injury with punitive severe deductions.

Click to expand...

What data supports that? If you look at the PCS that Papadakis/Cizeron got for their FD, they are almost identical to the scores they got in the SD, and within a point of their best performances and several points better than several other performances this season. There's no transparency in the process.

I think it's highly unfair to the other skaters to allow an interrupted program to go unpenalized, if it is the responsibility of the skaters. PCS are supposed to judge characteristics over the entire program, and when unity/continuity is broken, it's asking the judges to compare apples to oranges.

Lest anyone think that it is only high profile skaters who suffer no penalty in PCS, Here's Yang & Wu's PCS. They did not do any JGP's this year, so there's no really comparable scores for this season.

I think a break, at the very least, should obviate any back-half bonuses. I'd also assert that if the break happens during or immediately preceding an element, that the skater(s) shouldn't be allowed to perform the element again.

I think a break, at the very least, should obviate any back-half bonuses. I'd also assert that if the break happens during or immediately preceding an element, that the skater(s) shouldn't be allowed to perform the element again.

I think there should be no penalty if it's not the skaters' responsibility or misjudgement -- i.e., injury, equipment, costumes, thinks s/he sees a pile of beads in the corner when it's just ice chips -- and I think if it's not the skater's responsibility, the skater/team should be able to restart the program.

Click to expand...

In general I agree with you with the exception of equipment and costume failure. If the skater's equipment and costume caused the problem, the skater needs to take the responsibility for the failure. I know car racing is not the same as skating (and car racing is head to head competition), but I'm going to use that as an example to illustrate my point regarding equipment failure. If the car got a flat tire during the race, should the clock stops for the tire replacement? Let's take marathon as another example. If the racer's shoes fell apart during the race and the racer needs to change into another pair of shoes, should the clock stops for that also?